The French philosopher and diplomat, Joseph-Marie de Maistre, once claimed that “Every nation gets the government it deserves”. His statement is controversial and provocative. A cursory look at the last century reveals some unsavoury characters propelled to high office through a popular plebiscite or the ballot. Adolf Hitler consolidated his power following a referendum and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also had the backing of a substantial part of the electorate.
On the other hand, there are other leaders who were imposed on the wider population through revolution or autocratic succession. No one can claim with credibility that citizens deserved the reigns of terror unleashed by Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Matters become complicated when elections are held in democracies where the press is free, the electoral process is open to public scrutiny, and the necessary checks and balances strengthen the system. In this scenario, there is greater credibility to Maistre’s claim.
The two most questionable and flawed candidates in living memory contested the recent US presidential election. Their campaign was characterised by a constant trading of personal insults and revelations which would make any decent person blush. Nonetheless, both saw their nominations confirmed by the popular vote.
Hillary Clinton secured 55.2 per cent of the vote and almost 17 million popular votes during the primary of the Democratic Party. Despite the strong challenge by Bernie Sanders, she still managed to portray herself as the progressive choice after clinching the nomination.
However, her narrative could not be taken at face value. There is hardly anything progressive about a candidate whose global initiative received funds from Saudi Arabia, whose close links to Wall Street are well known and whose leaked e-mails reveal a less-than-transparent track record.
Donald Trump’s victory surprised many commentators around the world. Polls had constantly predicted he was trailing behind the Democratic nominee. Right from the start of his campaign, his candidacy faced a great deal of justified opprobrium.
However, despite the opposition from within the Republican Party, he still managed to win 44.9 per cent of the vote and just over 14 million popular votes at primary level. In the presidential election, Trump managed to win the Electoral College but failed to win the popular vote by a very small margin of votes.
His supporters claimed that he spoke their language; the result was perceived to be a victory for the ‘man in the street’ and a reflection of the emerging anti-establishment tide. Nonetheless, he had very little in common with his voter-base.
Many in working-class Middle America couldn’t be further removed from the billionaire lifestyle of the businessman and reality TV star turned politician. Trump’s credibility seems to lie solely in the strength of his rhetoric and his disdain for the establishment.
Populism makes effective use of public opinion and manipulates the established order to make a case for its own vision
Voters still lack the ability to control much of the process. The electorate has very little choice in the selection of candidates for primaries and other leadership roles. More often than not, the initial selection of candidates is drawn from a limited pool of individuals. Campaigns have also become costly endeavours which necessitate the mobilisation of funds. The ability to attract donors and generate media interest is key to securing widespread support. Effective spin machines also have the power to shape public opinion and perception. Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations and spin, defines propaganda as the “executive arm of the invisible government”.
In his 1928 book, aptly titled Propaganda, Bernays writes that “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”. The irony of this should not be lost on the person who believes he is making a free and rational choice.
His book makes for sobering reading: “The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.”
The success by populists on the left and right of the political spectrum may seem like a reaction against this establishment. However, populism also makes effective use of public opinion and manipulates the established order to make a case for its own vision. The distrust of media outlets and established institutions serve to create a counter-narrative to the status-quo.
The currency of politics was once public relations and spin. Now this seems to have been replaced by rhetoric and charisma. The trouble with the former is that it produces largely uninspiring plastic leaders while the latter generates leaders who may be unfit for office. In order to have better leaders, voters must question the motives of their candidates and never take their statements at face value.
Nonetheless, good governance does not solely depend on leadership. In fact, this focus may be misplaced. Leaders do not operate in a vacuum. They work within institutions, and their power is subject to checks and balances.
Effective governance depends on the ability of institutions to function regardless of who is leader. A nation will indeed get the government it deserves if it overlooks the importance of institutions which check those who hold authority and provide continuity regardless of who is elected to high office.
The proper functioning of a democracy depends on the delicate balance between elected officials, limited government and accountable institutions. This dynamic is slowly being eroded. If citizens focus solely on their elected officials, they are indirectly jeopardising their future. Trends, unfortunately, reveal that Maistre’s maxim rings true.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista holds degrees in public policy and international relations.